D. K. Kapur, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a Writ Petition broueht by Krishan Lal Suri, petitioner, to challenge the seizure of his arms licence issued under the Arms Act, 1919 and also his shooting licence granted under the Punjab Wild Birds and Wild Animals Protection Act, 193) as extended to Delhi. It appears that the petitioner holds a licence under the Arms Act, which relates to (a) one single barrel gun, (b) a double barralgun and (e) a rifle. He also holds alicence issued under the Punjab Wild Birds and Wild Animals Protection Act (hareinafter referred to as the Punjab Act ). It appears that once a person has a licence under the Arms Act, he is entitled to get a shooting licence under the Punjab Act on the payment of a modest fee. The petitioner s licence under the Arms Act was to expire on 12th November, 1971, but he made an application for renewal before this date and paid Rs. 661- which was the prescribed fee. This is the fee for three years. ( 2 ). From the facts disclosed in the Writ Petition, it appears that the petitioner shot a hare (Khargosh) in the off season and there by infringed the provisions of the Punjab Act. The said Act provides that certain animals can only be shot, captured or possessed in particular sea sons and as far as hares are concerned, the period is 15th September to 31st March. The petitioner admitted his guilt and was fined Rs. 10. 00 by Shri Raja Ram, Magistrate. On 19th August, 1971, a notice was issued under Section 5 of the Punjab Act to the petitioner by Shri Sant Lal Nagrath. Games Inspector, respondent No. 4. This notice required the petitioner to produce his shooting licence on 1st September, 1971. I may reproduce Section 5 of the Punjab Act at this stage :- "any person is possassion of any wild bird or wil animal specified in Schedules II and III shall, if required so to do by a person authorised in this behalf produce his licence within fifteen days". Admittedly the petitioner did not produce his licence on that day but wrote a letter saying that he could not trace out his shooting licence because there had been a recent death of two relatives in his faimly and he was otherwise busy. Admittedly the petitioner did not produce his licence on that day but wrote a letter saying that he could not trace out his shooting licence because there had been a recent death of two relatives in his faimly and he was otherwise busy. This letter is Annexure d to the Writ Petition Shri Nagrath, Games inspector then wrote another letter to the petitioner asking him to produce the shooting licence by 13th September, 1971. This letter was issued on 8th September, 1971, and according to the petitioner, was received by him after 13th September, 1971. following this letter, the petitioner again requested for a further date to produce the licecnce as. he had received the letter late. ( 3 ). According to the petitioner on 23rd September, 1971, a police constable and an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police came to the petitioner s residence in Tilak Nagar, Delhi, and asked him to hand over his arms licence as well as the shooting licence. A seizure memorandum was also prepared at the lime of the taking over of these two licences, which is Annexure g to the Writ Petition. Later, on, the petitioner applied to the District Magistrate for the return of the two licences but the same were not relumed. This was followed by a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was also not complied with. In view of the non-return of the licences to the petitioner, the petitioner brought this Writ Petition on 18th November. 1971. ( 4 ). The respondents have put in a return consisting of an affidavit and Annexures to show the facts and circumstances leading to the seizure of the arms and shooting licences of the petitioner. I shall first taket up the position of the respondents qua the arms licence. It appears that a notice Annexure R-3 was issued by Shri H. D Birdi, respondent No. 3 on 16th August, 1971. calling upon the petitioner to produce the licence within 15 days. This notice s in the form Of a printed postcard which is partly in Hindi and partly in English. It does not bear any signatures of any one, but seems to say at the top of the post-card "please refer to your application dated X and please refer to 7 below. This notice s in the form Of a printed postcard which is partly in Hindi and partly in English. It does not bear any signatures of any one, but seems to say at the top of the post-card "please refer to your application dated X and please refer to 7 below. Then there are a number of cuttings and then the words "please send your Arms Licence within fifteen days". It is not possible to make out what this document means and who was the person who sent this notice and what were the reasons which prompted him to sent for the licence. This notice was not complied with and this led the said Shri Birdi to write a letter to the Police Station, Tilak Nagar, calling upon the Station House Officer to collect the licences. Acting on the basis of this letter, which is also on record as Annexure R-4 to the Writ Petition, the police seized the licences from the petitioner. The question for decision is whether such a procedure is justified under tha provisions of the Arms Act. I may for convenience refer to the power of demanding and ordering production of licences. Though the power is not specifically mentioned in the Arms Act, there is a rule to be found in the Arms Rules, 1962, on the subject which is Rule 62 and runs thus : - "production of licences.- (1) Any person who- (a) holds a licence granted or renewed or a pass, permit or certificate granted under these rules, or (b) is acting under colour of such licence, pass, permit or certificate, shall forthwith produce such licence, pass permit or certificate upon demand by any magistrate or any police officer of a rank not below that of an officer-in-charge of a police station. (2) While granting or renewing a licence, "no authority shall impose a condition inconsistent with sub-rule (1)". According to this rule, any person holding a licence has to forthwith produce the licence if demanded by a magistrate or police officer not below the rank of officer-in charge of a police station. Thus, if the letter R-3 was sent to the petitioner by Shri Birdi, the petitioner was obliged to produce the licence under Rule 62. As I have already mentioned the document asking for production of the licences is obscure and possibly under these circumstances, the licence was in fact not. Thus, if the letter R-3 was sent to the petitioner by Shri Birdi, the petitioner was obliged to produce the licence under Rule 62. As I have already mentioned the document asking for production of the licences is obscure and possibly under these circumstances, the licence was in fact not. produced. According to the petitioner s rajoinder, he never got this letter at all. But, asssuming that he did get it and failed to produce the licences as required, was the police entitled to seize the licences under any powers under the Act. ( 5 ). I have been taken through the various provisions of the Rules and the Act. but Mr Kohli on behalf of the Stats has not been able to show me any provision of law which entitles the police to seize the licences on their non production. Mr Kohli submits that as there is a power to direct production of the licence it follows that in the event of non-production the police has a right to seize the document. I am afraid that this is travelling beyond the scope of the sections of the Act and the Rules. A licence is only a document issued by the authorities. If the authorities want the same to be produced, they can direct its production, but the action of compulsorily taking the same into possession without revoking or suspending the same seems to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. I may mention that section 17 of the Act has given the Licencing Authority wide powers. this power includes the variation, suspension and revocation of licences There is also under Section 15 the power to refuse the renewal of a licence If the Licencing Authority wanted the petitioner s licence to come to an end, it could suspend the same under Section 17. If it is satisfied that there has been a breach of certain conditions it could also revoke the licence, but to take physical possession of the licence byforce or by the exercise of police powers appears to be outside the scope of the Act or Rules. If it is satisfied that there has been a breach of certain conditions it could also revoke the licence, but to take physical possession of the licence byforce or by the exercise of police powers appears to be outside the scope of the Act or Rules. A person having a document in his possession is entitled to retain the same unless he can be compelled to give up its possession by some recognisable rule of law arising from statute There are no doubt vast police powers to take possession of documents which can be exercised in a suitable cases. There is no suggestion that the documents have been taken into possession by the issue of a search warrant or on the institution of a first information report or under any other such power. Here, the seizure has taken place only after the alleged notice R-3 was issued, which does not even seem to have been delivered to the petitioner. Assuming that there was no production of the licence, the only course open for the authorities was to take action under its statutory powers and rot by sending the police to take possession of the licence. I may mentionthat if physical possession of the licence is taken, it means that the holder of the licence can no longer use the arms he owns because under section 19 of the Act any police officer may demand the production of the licence from any person carrying arms or ammunition. ( 6 ). Mr. Kohli contends that the seizure of a licence is not equivalent to the suspension of the licence and all what was required from the petitioner was production of his licence He also submits that the seizure memo is equivalent to a licence If that is so, why was production of the licence required ? It is only a document and unless it is wanted for cancellation, revocation or suspension, there is no point in taking the document into possession Mr Kohli urges that this Writ is pro-mature because action has yet to be taken. On the of her hand, there is no doubt that the licence has been seized, and therefore, there- has been an infringment of the statute. As long as there is no statutory enactment enabling the police to take physical possession of licence, the action has to be held to be ultra vires. ( 7 ). On the of her hand, there is no doubt that the licence has been seized, and therefore, there- has been an infringment of the statute. As long as there is no statutory enactment enabling the police to take physical possession of licence, the action has to be held to be ultra vires. ( 7 ). I row come to the case of the shooting licence. According to Section 5 of the Punjab Act, production of the licence can be asked for from a person in possession of any wild bird or wild animal. The- wild animal of will bird for the purposes of this Section ncludes the the flash of such wild animal or bird. Now the facts in relation to the shooting licence are that the petitioner had received the notice requiring him to produce the same but he wrote back saying that he could not find the same for certain reasons. Subsequently, another letter directed him to produce the document on 13th September, 1971 which he received on 16th September, 1971. It so happened that the petitioner was unable to produce this licence because of the late receipt of the notice After this, this shooting licence was also seized along with the arms licence. I am unable to find any power in the Act to even revoke such a licence. The only power which has been pointed out to me, is that if a person is punished for a second time under Section 9 of the Act, his licence can be confiscated. It, therefore, follows that the seizure of this licence can also not be justified under any provision of law. This licence could not even be suspended, revoked, etc. , but in all fairness to the respondents, it must be pointed out that this shooting licence is dependant on the holding of an arms licence. As the rules framed under this Act for the Union Territory of Delhi suggest, ashooting licance can only be issued to a person who already has an arms licence. Thus, if the arms licence is cancelled, the shooting licence will also stand cancelled, and if an arms licence is suspended, the shooting licence will also stand suspended. As the rules framed under this Act for the Union Territory of Delhi suggest, ashooting licance can only be issued to a person who already has an arms licence. Thus, if the arms licence is cancelled, the shooting licence will also stand cancelled, and if an arms licence is suspended, the shooting licence will also stand suspended. I am unable to find any rule or provision, either in the Punjab Act or elsewhere, which justified the seizure of the shooting licence merely on account of the non-production of the same in response to a notice under Section 5 of the Act, It is only necessary to point out that there is a peculiarity in this case before me. There is no doubt that the authorities concerned have the power to order production of these licences. This can be done under Rule 62 of the Arms Rales, 1962 in the case of an arms licence and under Section 5 of the Punjab Act in the case of the shooting licence. There is no provision dealing with the powers to be exercised if the document is not produced. Even if the production of the licences could be enforced by some special power, the same has not been pointed out to me. It does not follow that the licences can be retained by the police if they are produced Production means production for a special purpose. Once they have been produced and shown, they should he returned to the owner so that he can use the same. In the present case, the seizure of the documents under police powers seems to be intended to revoke the licences or make them invalid or useless by the use of a non-legal power. In other words, the respondents have not acted according to the statute hut haw still maraged to make the licences inoperative qua the petitioner. This being an unjust act and being contrary to the statute has to be struck down. Consequently, a writ has to issue in favour of the petitioner to direct the respondents to return the two licences to the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed that the licences should be renewed on payment of renewal fees. It is submitted that the fees have already been paid and hence the respondents should renew the licences. Consequently, a writ has to issue in favour of the petitioner to direct the respondents to return the two licences to the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed that the licences should be renewed on payment of renewal fees. It is submitted that the fees have already been paid and hence the respondents should renew the licences. I can only direct the authorities to deal with the question of renewal of the arms licence in accordance with law. The parties will bear their own costs.